Mapping stakeholders for system evaluation - The case of the electronic prescription service in England

Studies in Health Technology and Informatics

Volumn 160, Issue PART 1, 2010, Pages 1221-1225

  Lichtner, V ^a   Petrakaki, D ^a   Hibberd, R ^b   Venters, W ^a   Cornford, A ^a   Barber, N ^b  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Community pharmacy services; Electronic prescribing; Evaluation studies as topic; Information systems; Method

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

COMMUNITY PHARMACY SERVICES; ELECTRONIC PRESCRIBING; EVALUATION STUDY; HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEMS; ITS EVALUATION; METHOD; PRIMARY CARE; SYSTEM EVALUATION;

INFORMATION USE;

EID: 78649495064     PISSN: 09269630     EISSN: 18798365     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-60750-588-4-1221     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (12)

1. Checkland P, Holwell S. Information, systems and information systems: making sense of the field. UK: John Wiley & Sons, 1997.
2. Mumford E, Weir M. Computer systems in work designthe ETHICS method. New York: Wiley, 1979.
3. Pouloudi A, Whitley E. Stakeholder identification in interorganizational systems: gaining insights for drug use management systems. European Journal of Information Systems 1997:6(1):1-14.
4. Connecting For Health. EPS Release 2 - Business process guidance for initial implementers; 2009 April 2009.
5. Freeman R, Harrison J, Wicks A. Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. US: Yale University Press, 2007.
6. Mitchell R, Agle B, Wood D. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 1997:22(4):853-886.
7. Star SL, Griesemer JR. Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 1989:19:387-420.
8. Boland RJ, Jr., Tenkasi RV. Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing. Organization Science 1995:6(4):350-372.
9. Latour B. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. US: Harvard University Press, 1988.
10. Star S. Simplification in scientific work: An example from neuroscience research. Social Studies of Science 1983:13(2):205-228.
11. Cooper R. Technologies of representation. In: Perti A, editor. Tracing the Semiotic Boundaries of Politics. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993; pp. 279-312.
12. Corner J. The Agency of Mapping: Speculation, Critique and Invention. In: Cosgrove D, editor. Mappings. London: Reaktion Books, 1999; pp. 213-252.